-El Rojo
See you get people on here like Powderman who just aren't playing in reality. Threaten to use a nuclear device on a city? Where does all of this bravado come from? Then in his scenario we don't even use it, we go in with troops and don't even follow through. I guess I am expecting some good discussion from the High Road about real possibilities, not what my big egotistical, bad arse self would like to do.
This thread is taking a lot of pennies out of my pocket, but since I started the whole Hiroshima-Nagasaki thing I should clarify.
I didn't advocate using the nuclear option on Fallujah. I brought out that whole reference to atomics because I beliebe that America should be prepared to do whatever it takes to end this war for its very survival. This whole "oh but we don't kill innocents" line is bulls%&t. Innocents get clipped in every war. America stands apart because unlike empires of the past, it takes the High Road and puts the preservation of life and human liberty for all, even its enemies, foremost. I don't think any empire before save the Toltecs, who used blunt weapons to stun their enemies in war without killing, has taken that position and enshrined it.
It would be very easy for me to take the line that the "big, bad imperialist Americans" are to blame for all of the world's ills like the rest of the "barbarians" overseas, but I don't because I understand that America has done what it has done because it needed to be done, and no more. America needed to incinerate two cities with atomics because it needed to take those extreme measures to end the prosecution of a ruinous war that would have killed millions. If I, the descendant of mortal enemies, can understand that and accept it, I find it unbelievable that native-born Americans now shy away from it.
Like it or not, this is a "thousand year war." I've heard enough of this being a "Crusaders vs Islam" struggle to know that it isn't going to end tomorrow just because we pull out. Every lack of resolve, every weakness, every unanswered atrocity makes it all the more necessary for America to up the ante to finish the war.
At various points before, given the option to do more with far less, America has backed away from it because national resolve was not up to the measures that were needed. So like malignant cancer, terrorist organizations, nuclear proliferation, and rogue states have spread, and now we're paying the price for decades of letting a%^holes kidnap our citizens, hijack our planes, bomb our buildings, murder our troops, and for us not doing a damn thing about it, except for a show of strength from a strong president here and there. All it took was one bombing raid put Qaddafi out of business, but instead of taking notes from that all-too-brief lesson and meeting threats with overwhelming strength, the American public chooses to show the world that it is totally ok for terrorists to keep on hitting us, because the cries of "bring the boys home" and "don't hurt those poor third world people" will prevail.
For America to have to launch a full-scale invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq is in itself a colossal failure of national policy. It is a failure born of weak-stomached public opinion, that made terrorists ever since Beirut '83 that if you hit Americans, they would fold like origami, and run. That lesson got reinforced over and over again, until we got 9/11. It took the First and Second Gulf Wars to convince the world that a full-on conventional war with America means death. Every other major enemy, like Communist China and North Korea, notches down its aggressive foreign policy in deference to American strength.
When are we going to get it? We are not like other countries. We try not to indiscriminately kill millions of people to get our way. We have in the past when that was the only means to the end. Now that is not the only means to the end.
No, America is the only nation that has actually killed millions of people for a better end. Every communist killed in Asia, every fascist killed in Germany and Japan, meant that the line held, Fascism died, the Soviets never tried for an open confrontation, and America remained safe. There is a lot about American history that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but the sacrifices of American fighting men isn't one of them.
Plus, will it work? If the US Government decided to outlaw guns and said, "The city of Omaha has one hour to hand over all gun owners or we are going to blow the entire city to hell", how would you respond? Turn in your neighbor? Then once you are done blowing Omaha all to hell, you have to go to Phoenix next. And to every city in America after that. Blowing everyone away in order to get them to comply. How many gun owning American's would respond well to this show of force?
That's America. Try that on a nation of freedom-loving, independent-thinking people. If the US Government tried to disarm all of Iraq in the first few weeks during the invasion, it would have been a lot easier than now. When I advocated disarming the Iraqi citizenry, I didn't advocate using the threat of "cordon-and-annihilate" to get compliance. Use enough troops, and I believe that we can still get a good proportion of the caches. A zero tolerance policy, done right, will go a very long way.
Force is not everything. It is important when used properly. However, you cannot make a people submit by force and expect them to cooperate with you indefinitely afterwards. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Ask the Soviets about that one.
I recall the various Soviet Republics submitted quite readily to rule from Moscow for the better part of a century, to the point where mass population movements were done without a murmur. I don't recall violent revolution being at the center of the collapse of the USSR. It was more like kids in daycare seeing the door open and making a run for the street.
Force followed by firm and just measures is the only answer we've got. Rational negotiations, speeches, and half-hearted police actions alone are going to reinforce the "Americans are weak" delusion and encourage more hits against us. The state of affairs as it stands is "die Ameriki, die." I hardly think that projecting "what would Americans do?" onto Iraqi behavior is neither appropriate or even remotely realistic. The common language of human relations is force. This is what they understand. They don't understand democracy, they don't understand Western economics, and they certainly don't care about anything other than getting rich and killing us off. Anyone care to discuss how we can make the citizens of Fallujah feel better about life and cooperate with us by going over there to talk it over with them, be my guest.
You can however kill anyone who took a direct part and kill everyone else who takes part afterwards. You still need to talk to the rest of the populace and try and persuade them that it isn't worth taking that risk. This is pretty similar to what I am advocating against, with the exception that you let people make a choice and then you kill them. You just don't kill everyone and tell them "Tough luck, you shouldn't have lived next to terrorists." That makes all of the families of the innocent people you killed want to kill you. How many people do we plan on killing over there? Based on the ideas of some people here, all of them. I don't want to take over Iraq, if you do, move on over. Otherwise lets think of productive ways we can get the Iraqis to take their damn country back over and get us the hell out of there for the next 50 years until it is time to go back again.
Did it occur to anyone that this event was staged just like Mogadishu? You think that camera crew was allowed to be there by those a%&holes so that we'd all see the images and the American public, just like in Somalia, would lose heart for this war, back out, and then we'd get another 9/11 on our watch? Media savviness from terrorists. Nothing new. Think of Hanoi Jane playing fiddle for the NVA.
Since we have all that wonderful footage, let's see if we can snag all those SOBs on tape and hammer them to ruin. Then it's a real, real strong firm hand on the tiller after that. If you think that "persuasion" is the way to go, more power to you. There method of persuasion is killing us overseas, and at home. I think the smoking crater of the WTC I saw on Christmas 2001 on leave was enough of a message. I think the murders we're talking about in this thread of American citizens is enough of a reminder. I really didn't want to take over Iraq and I really don't want to "move on over" but I did exactly that, for a year, because I believed in my C-in-C and I believed in him being strong enough to stay the course and keep us in the fight. I still do. I know better than believe that MOABs and cluster munitions will save the day, but damn, isn't the very survival of this nation worth a little committment to a hard cause instead of saying "let's high tail it out of there, I don't like what I see on TV"?
I expect to get roundly flamed ... still ... and that is enough from me for tonight. For everyone who thinks I am too long on the soapbox, I'm sorry. I really think so too. You all have a good night.
Peace out.
